Joe Kraus: Hiring. No False Positives

I take one issue to the Google policy outlined here - There is danger, if you disallow candidates who don't have full consensus of the hiring board, of creating groups and rooms full of people who have the same skills, the same values, and the same thinking. Mitch Kapor put it well at startup school - mirror-tocracy instead of meritocracy.

Hiring diversity (of thought) is as important as hiring quality.

Hmm... if A players hire A players, B players hire C players, and C players hire losers, how could B players ever get hired?

Do the people who think up these simplistic axioms ever bother to think them through?

Far33d's comment about the "echo chamber" effect is well-stated. Look into why IBM missed the minicomputer boom, and why DEC missed the microcomputer boom.

Sam_Odio also has a valid point. Selecting the choice that offends the fewest people is what gives us so many buildings with walls and carpet that are a bland beige/white/gray color.

The real issue here is distinguishing between Joe 1, who's controversial because he's a bloody genius, and Joe 2, who's controversial because he's an asshole. This is further complicated by the fact that legitimate geniuses aren't always the easiest people with whom to get along. If you take this guy's advice, you'll wind up with Joe 3, who may be a good worker bee, but probably isn't ever going to do anything great.

One important issue that seems to be missing from these discussions is that a lot of hiring is about internal team dynamics. The big fear I have is of people who don't want to hire employees that are smarter(broadest sense) than they are. One of the biggest benefits of working is the opportunity to work next to people you respect or enjoy.

For ambitious, smart people also known as 'A Players', it's not easy to provide them with an environment where they will feel challenged and inspired by their team members. But doing so greatly increases the likelihood of winning those hires. Why do so many 'A Players' want to work for Google? I believe that it's because there's a sense that other smart people work there. You get a network effect happening in the HR side of things. Think of reasons for attending Stanford and Harvard, it's not really about the quality of what will be taught but the assumed quality of the others in attendance.

In my opinion, it seems this hiring process might actually encourage mediocrity. You might be in danger of hiring "ok at everything" employees over those that are "extraordinary at a few things."

The mediocre employees wouldn't get any negative votes, while the extraordinary ones would.

This sounds like a band meeting. Unanimous voting is the only way to fly when you're tiny, but I have a hard time believing companies like Google only hire A talent now that they're much larger; and I know from people that have worked there that it's not true at Microsoft.

Here's a quote from someone (who became a millionaire from his other ventures) about his time at Microsoft: "I went there because that's where the money was, right? Biggest bunch of idiots I've ever seen in my life!"